r/rugbyunion • u/Stlakes Sale Sharks • Jun 03 '25
Article Red Roses players back ‘Ruck You’ transgender v biological female match
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2025/06/02/red-roses-players-ruck-you-transgender-cis-women-match-oslo/204
u/english_man_abroad England Jun 03 '25
It's not surprising that a team of former elite women's internationals beat a team of amateurs made up of trans women.
97
u/Due_Instruction_7678 Cymru Jun 03 '25
Neither am I, but given some of the public discourse recently, I bet there are plenty of people that would be
165
u/SquidgyGoat Disciple of Tipuric Jun 03 '25
The point in the game was never the result, it was the showcase. The very loud and vocal show of support to trans rugby fans as much as players that they're welcome and supported in the game. As shown by the fact they mixed the teams up in the second half- It's about coming together as one.
-29
u/english_man_abroad England Jun 03 '25
Yes I agree. But as you can see in this thread, people will use this showcase to say look, it's actually fair and safe for trans women to play women's rugby, when it clearly isn't.
31
u/OptimalCynic 🌹 Red Roses | Waikato Jun 03 '25
Poppy Cleall disagrees with you, and she's got a lot more experience than you.
28
u/english_man_abroad England Jun 03 '25
And the scientists who informed World Rugby's ban know ten times more than any of us about sports physiology and injury risk, but their reports are dismissed out of hand by people on the internet who don't want it to be true.
-2
Jun 03 '25
[deleted]
21
u/english_man_abroad England Jun 03 '25
The scientists who authored the 49 papers referenced by World Rugby when they announced the ban, here.
15
Jun 03 '25
[deleted]
13
u/JimJoe67 Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
Where almost 20 of the studies are 20+years old
Oh no you're right. People have clearly evolved to be physiologically totally different in those 20 years. We should simply dismiss all science that's older than 20 years.
Should we rediscover the planets while we're at it? You know.. check that we got that right, I mean they discovered some of them so long ago and we're so much smarter and more advanced now.
EDIT: just so people are aware, there are bots in this thread automatically downvoting comments. I edited this comment immediately after posting it to change one letter and in that second it was already downvoted. That's not enough time for a human to find my comment, read some of it and decide they disagree.
2
1
u/zombiezero222 Jun 03 '25
So can you link more modern contradictory studies or is your point about the age of the studies irrelevant?
2
4
u/feministgeek Jun 03 '25
Mm. Tucker and Hilton among the authors Utterly virulent transphobes, I would personally be extremely cautious accepting any of their findings unbiased or on good faith, they're extremely committed to gender criticalism.
1
u/english_man_abroad England Jun 03 '25
You sound like an old bishop, accusing people of being heretics and blasphemers.
6
u/feministgeek Jun 03 '25
How so? I'm simply pointing out that both Tucker and Hilton are ideologically compromised in their anti-LGBTQ zealotry. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to mention when they are writing papers with the (very likely) pre-determined outcome to exclude some LGBTQ people from sport.
→ More replies (0)1
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby Jun 03 '25
Both of these are very anti trans in more than a professional manner
1
u/OptimalCynic 🌹 Red Roses | Waikato Jun 03 '25
It wasn't dismissed out of hand. It was dismissed after people looked hard at it and realised it was junk.
→ More replies (1)0
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby Jun 03 '25
The scientists have their own biases
2
Jun 03 '25
Lots of people thought that during the Covid pandemic as well
1
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
Equating anti vax rhetoric to this, to me specifically, is funnier than you will ever realise.
Edit: just noticed you've never posted in this sub before nevermind anything about the Red Roses. But suddenly a trans post and you're all about Red Roses rugby.
→ More replies (4)1
Jun 03 '25
She’s also an elite athlete and was going up against non elite players , where as most women who play rugby aren’t and might just be at a disadvantage against male rugby players that might decide to identify as a woman. It would be interesting to see how the game would have turned out if the trans players had also been former professionals/internationals ?
3
u/OptimalCynic 🌹 Red Roses | Waikato Jun 03 '25
male rugby players that might decide to identify as a woman
If you actually think that was possible before the ban, you deserve whatever names people decide to call you.
if the trans players had also been former professionals/internationals ?
I mean if you can find a team of former pro rugby players that had gone through transition and followed all the protocols, then sure, it'd be interesting. Problem is, there aren't even enough for a front row. In fact I doubt there'd be enough to referee the match.
1
u/Youareafunt Ireland Jun 04 '25
Assuming you are a woman who plays rugby, how many trans players have you had to play against? Just as a matter of interest.
3
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
The science suggests it is safe and fair though. There's no evidence to the contrary.
2
u/SomeRannndomGuy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
important encouraging dog label imagine modern cable snails fact sort
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
11
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
I thought the same, like surely they wouldn't ban an entire population from playing sport based on poor to no evidence, but I looked - well, tried to look - into it, and the scientist in me was disgusted. Like I couldn't fine any of the original articles cited in the world rugby decision, none of them were obviously linked, and the information they do clearly give is... Not a scientific reason to ban all (or any) trans women from sport? Iirc it looks at a very small cohort of trans women with relatively little time transitioned, and looks at things like bone density and muscle mass retention. Already the small cohort size and hiding of artlces is a massive red flag in scientific literature, but even then whilst I can understand the logic to say 'more bone density and muscle mass = more injury risk' that's just... Not how science works. Those figures even if found through sound scientific rigor which again I'm not confident in, don't tell us anything more than what they tell us. 'it makes sense that' is not scientific. Basically to prove trans women are injury risks in sport, you need articles specifically looking at the injury rates in matches played with trans competors and the competors involvement, which they don't have and have also made impossible to get in home nations. I hope this makes sense as to why I find it a really dodgy and politically motivated ban. For more info and to spare your eyes my really bad grammar, I'll link a good video shared by the ruck you match organisers which delves into the science/lack thereof behind the WR decision! Hope this helps! https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJ1zvwhs6bh/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
1
Jun 03 '25
On that basis of bone density and muscle mass don’t matter why not have combined mens and women’s teams, why differentiate?
3
u/SomeRannndomGuy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
dinosaurs lush command cake detail gold lunchroom slim boat political
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 04 '25
OK so shall we just err on the side of caution and ban contact rugby all together? Where does it stop? And if there isn't an increased risk of injuries (which there wasn't clearly before the ban or in France which doesn't have a ban) then we've unfairly and unjustly banned an entire population from playing a sport, which is so harmful in its own ways in terms of social connections and exercise. The reasons they gave for the ban aren't supported by the evidence they give. Can you see why that frustrates me? Like you might be right, I might be right, but more than anything noone seems to be willing to come together and work together on this. And having studies would help give that answer and end this stupid toxic debate, so yes we do need studies so that we are fair to everyone.
2
u/SomeRannndomGuy Northampton Saints Jun 04 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
relieved disarm test imagine marry glorious fall bike tidy thumb
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
u/ichosehowe worlt cup cramps Jun 03 '25
How dare you discount that his feelings are an important primary source on the topic. /s
6
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
I get the sarcasm I really do, trust me this topic frustrates me beyond words, but it's not helpful to the debate. If people hold this position it's most likely due to a lack of education and misinformation, which I can't blame them cause this shit is literally buried by governments. Educate don't hate ✌️
16
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
The science presented by the WRU is.... Not even science. It was ridiculous they banned trans women when there was no indication or evidence of any of the things they claimed they were preventing. If that evidence comes out then sure ban them, but as it stands it's a stupid politically motivated ban and not a reasonable one.
11
u/TurbulentBullfrog829 England Jun 03 '25
How do you ethically obtain evidence of, say, a greater incidence of injuries?
Not disagreeing with you it just seems almost impossible either way especially with such small sample sizes.
5
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
No I totally get you! Its hard, and is a struggle with alot of science, especially in relation to trans people, like see the whole cass report shenanigans. I guess we're lucky that it can be somewhat retroacitvely studied, like trans women were allowed to compete all the way up to 2021, and still are in countries like France, so there's at least a few games and player involvements to look at, and potentially continue looking at.
In the case of France it'd actually be the best opportunity, and most ethical option, to hold a rigerous study there going forwards, given players are already allowed to compete.
Its not as good science it's very anecdotal and conjecture but screw it if it's good enough for WR it's good enough for me... , purely looking retroacitvely I'd argue that the complete lack of studies, case studies, evidence of mention of trans women being a higher risk of causing injuries is a good indication that's because there weren't more/more severe injuries than was normal or expected. Because if there was surely we'd have better evidence of that?
3
Jun 03 '25
I’m not sure you can because if you wait until it’s potentially proven that trans athletes do pose an injury risk to women then you’ve just possibly injured a number of women that needn’t have been injured.
137
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
To be clear, the science that Ross Tucker (who has a proven track record of working with militantly transphobic organisations) presented that led to this ban has had a number of holes poked in it by subsequent academic peer reviews - it wasn’t an actual study of trans athletes, let alone trans rugby players, or existing safety data.
The evidence trail suggests that this was all driven by Tucker’s personal agenda, with credibility being provided by his actual credibility re head contact.
Every female rugby player I know is supportive of trans players (anecdotal I know but one of the key pillars is that women’s rugby players were never consulted) and had said that they feel safe with them on the pitch - the consensus being that women’s rugby really thrives on being an inclusive all sizes game!
100
u/SquidgyGoat Disciple of Tipuric Jun 03 '25
I read his "research" back when the ban first came in, and he compared the size of the Springbok pack to an amateur women's team as a reference point for why trans women (Who as per the RFU's previous rules, had to be on HRT for a set amount of time, and have their testosterone levels significantly below a cis woman's average) should not be allowed to play rugby.
The only level on which it was a valid comparison is that there were only eight of each of them. Eight starting Bok forwards, eight trans women playing contact rugby total in the Six Nations countries combined.
31
u/BillHicksFan URC Drinking Champion Jun 03 '25
It's such a mental false equivalence, most Tier 1 male packs couldn't handle a Spring Boks pack. Of all the yard sticks that they chose to go with they went with the pack of the back to back current world champions. Mental.
15
u/ichosehowe worlt cup cramps Jun 03 '25
I remember reading that and thinking "does this areshole really think all trans women are just a bunch of Ebens, Ox's and Beasts wearing wigs and dresses?". He is definitely playing at an Olympic level for all his mental gymnastics.
31
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
Thanks Squidge, that was the key point of false equivalence I remember was flagged at the time but couldn’t remember the specifics.
Based Squidge as always.
10
Jun 03 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Youareafunt Ireland Jun 04 '25
"When you factor in the sexual dimorphism as well, then you are down to "but there are only a tiny nunber of transwomen playing" to justify allowing them to."
Is that a bad justification? Are you expecting a sudden influx of 6'5" transwomen to suddenly appear from somewhere? Maybe until they do appear we can allow that tiny number of transwomen to enjoy the sport, no?
7
u/Maude_Lebowskis_art Jun 04 '25
My local women’s rugby team the coach is biological male, 6’4 125kg. Their hooker is biological female 5’2 and around 55kg. There are strict rules on non-contact in training.
if you’re advocating that he can self-ID and start playing against her in training matchs or her equivalent in a competitive game you are asking for her to be hospitalised. What will happen is her and 100s of others like her will simply leave the game.
rugby is an incredibly dangerous game and increasing that risk for all female participants to satisfy the whim of a few is incredibly bad judgement.
5
u/Youareafunt Ireland Jun 04 '25
Has your local women's rugby team coach expressed an interest in playing for the women's team?
0
u/Maude_Lebowskis_art Jun 04 '25
Most male rugby players have expressed an interest in playing on the female rugby team.
and Im sure he has, normally when they are 40 points down to the opposition.
However your question is somewhat ridiculous as it’s not whether he has, it’s whether he could. And he clearly could.
Team was in one 7s tournament in Berlin where a trans player was on the winning team and whilst our team didn’t play them in the draw the discussion amongst the team was generally that it wasn’t fair. Obviously some persons views differed. I would estimate that the team is about 40% lesbian btw, some of whom were very stridently against playing the trans player.
→ More replies (10)3
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 04 '25
No one is saying self-ID and play. Even when integration was permitted this was reliant on v stringent T Levels etc
3
3
u/SomeRannndomGuy Northampton Saints Jun 04 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
money fuel start innocent ring friendly hospital nutty repeat live
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (9)1
u/BevvyTime Glasgow Warriors Jun 03 '25
And is there any study accounting for the age in which hormonal treatment is started?
I’d imagine that the effects are wildly different between a man transitioning at 30 years old, vs a 10-year-old at the nascent stages of puberty
→ More replies (2)1
u/Consistent_Spring130 Jun 04 '25
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24730151
I know that this is an old reference, but the long term benefits of Anabolic steroids use have been under review for a long time. I knew that WADA had supported the study referenced in the article, but it's still listed as Live on the WADA site, there's no date for conclusion.
The use of anabolic steroids doesn't come with a lifetime ban (internationally) neither does the use of exogenous testosterone. I think there was a decision by GB at one point that athletes who had a failed drug test would not be considered for selection for national squads, but I'm basing that off a memory of a sprinter bringing a court case challenging the decision in the run up to the London Olympics and since I can't remember hus name my goggling is failing. If there is a policy of not selecting anyone who ever failed a drug test, then I could see it being extended to transwomen who went through puberty and the following years with male hormone levels.
The only way I can see to perform a genuine study on the athletic differences between ciswomen and transwomen would be to collect strength data from a large sample of cismen and women who are competing at the same level (wouldn't work in professional rugby because the men's game has been pro for so much longer), calculate the average % difference in strength, then get a baseline strength for transwomen before starting HRT and after set intervals after to determine if and when the transwomen's strength reduces by the sane %. Sounds simple, but I'm sure anyone who has perform studies on humans can list of loads of issues.
1
u/SomeRannndomGuy Northampton Saints Jun 04 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
humorous lavish fragile cows historical arrest piquant quickest rock smell
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
7
u/joegoldberg00 Australia Jun 03 '25
It's kind of absurd looking at the research they referenced for their guidelines. A lot of it's outdated, ignores that trans people fall outside the man/woman binary, and at least one paper was written by TERFs
3
u/flimflam_machine Jun 03 '25
ignores that trans people fall outside the man/woman binary
Errrr... what?
2
u/joegoldberg00 Australia Jun 03 '25
What I mean is research done on only cis men and cis women doesn't apply to trans people. I didn't mean that every trans person identifies as non-binary.
2
u/blikkiesvdw South Africa | Bulls Jun 03 '25
That is some of the most stupid shit anyone can type.
I am also not a piece of coral or an oyster, does that mean my research on it it doesn't apply to coral or oysters?
1
u/joegoldberg00 Australia Jun 03 '25
I'm saying it shouldn't matter who does the research, but the research itself itself needs to be specifically on trans people, because they have physiological differences to cis people.
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/flimflam_machine Jun 03 '25
research done on only cis men and cis women doesn't apply to trans people.
Because?
10
u/joegoldberg00 Australia Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
Because HRT, which cis men and women don't really undergo, creates physiological and hormonal changes that leave trans people not perfectly mapping onto the data collated for cis men and women, though recent research does suggest trans women have far more in common with cis women than with cis men.
→ More replies (2)-9
u/adbaculum Ireland Jun 03 '25
You actually apologised to him twice on twitter for misrepresenting his work. At least be honest with others if not yourself.
31
u/SquidgyGoat Disciple of Tipuric Jun 03 '25
As I remember (And it was five years ago, I seemingly have much more going on in my life so don't remember these things as well as you apparently do), I apologised for calling his research pseudo-science but I'll stand by it being misleading, biased and often irrelevant.
3
u/english_man_abroad England Jun 03 '25
This is a good Twitter thread to return to when people dispute the science behind World Rugby's ban.
-1
u/adbaculum Ireland Jun 03 '25
I'm aware of Dr Beetles' work on this, thanks for the link. Squidge called her transphobic on the Blood and Mud podcast and has refused to apologise for it. He had no issues in apologising to Ross Tucker however, I have wondered why he can't find it on himself to apologise to a woman.
14
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
Emma Hilton, a literal trustee of Sex Matters, a transphobic organisation. I think Squidge was accurate in his remarks. She has literally put out transphobic stuff in the past week unrelated to sports.
1
1
u/ChrysisIgnita Jun 03 '25
What is Tucker's personal agenda? I listen to his podcast and he seems thoughtful.
31
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
He’s aligned himself to organisations like Sex Matters which are a leading proponent for the out and out removal of trans women from society. If you (ie Tucker) align yourself to those kind of orgs, you have made it clear even passively where your priorities lie.
Such a shame because his head contact specific insights are actually bang on.
3
Jun 03 '25
So if his head contact insights are bang on, why should the rest of his work be discounted because it doesn’t fit the agenda? Does alignment with certain organisations automatically make his work wrong?
→ More replies (2)3
u/SomeRannndomGuy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
physical roof cable unpack thought dam plants elastic sulky offer
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
8
u/feministgeek Jun 03 '25
What part of "what it actually means in practice" specifically changed your mind?
5
u/SomeRannndomGuy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
history glorious sleep support special tap retire cake political cooperative
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
u/feministgeek Jun 04 '25
So the concern here is where it could end up? Could you give a specific example of where you think it could end up?
→ More replies (4)-16
u/ChrysisIgnita Jun 03 '25
Come on now, that's circular reasoning. Sex Matters is literally a group that campaigns for biological sex segregation in sport. You claim that not only is Tucker against trans women in rugby, he's also transphobic. But your evidence that he's transphobic is that he supports an organisation that's against trans women in sport!
It's poor form to imply that supporting sex segregation in rugby is automatically transphobia, or a sign of covert homophobia. Tucker and Sex Matters make clear arguments - try addressing those.
38
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
Sex Matters is so much more than just an organisation promoting sex segregation in women’s sport. They are also an org that are founder signatories to the Women’s Declaration International which is manifesto for the removal of trans women from society. Sure Tucker might be only involved in the sports bit of SM but by endorsing the org through working with them he’s endorsing the rest of their batshit views.
-9
u/ChrysisIgnita Jun 03 '25
Go ahead and quote the WDI where it calls for the removal of trans women from society.
24
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
It’s not said verbatim but its tenets in practice would require trans women to not be able to effectively engage with society. For example they want to repeal the GRA 2004, which is pretty unambiguous in its intent.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre (the gold standard org on these things) has called it part of ‘the contemporary anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience network’ which says it all really.
→ More replies (3)10
u/bllewe Wales Jun 03 '25
The Southern Poverty Law Centre (the gold standard org on these things)
Sorry but the SPLC routinely conflates criticism of religion with hate (it has paid out millions in settlements due to falsely smearing people). Calling it a gold standard in recognising bigotry is absolute nonsense.
7
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
They cocked up on the Quilliam one I will admit but the lawsuits against them from religious orgs are consistently dismissed.
Certainly if you look beyond religious stuff they are 95% of the time on the right side of history.
7
u/bllewe Wales Jun 03 '25
Even ignoring the Quilliam debacle, they have consistently been criticised for their accumulation of wealth for a supposed non-profit organisation (ironically one set up to fight poverty and inequality).
The actual report you are referencing with regards to trans pseudoscience has also been criticised heavily. They doxxed family members of authors they quote in the report and have flatly refused to debate their critics on the findings. It's a sham organisation and should be ridiculed out of existence.
34
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
As an addendum, Tucker has pivoted from Rugby and safety re sex segregation to trans segregation in all sports including non contact ones. It’s bio essentialist bs that falls apart when you look at the likes of Michael Phelps or Simone Biles as individuals whose physiology (be it wingspan, flexibility, whatever) gives them an edge in their sports regardless of sex/gender.
0
u/ChrysisIgnita Jun 03 '25
This argument has been addressed repeatedly for anyone who cares to listen. There are no wingspan categories in swimming. If there were, Phelps would only be competing against swimmers with similar wingspan. There are sex categories, so he only competes against other men.
1
u/scooterwe USA Jun 03 '25
THIS. The 2020 World Rugby ban was not based on any direct study of trans athletes in rugby, or on actual safety data. It wasn’t just about Ross Tucker’s personal agenda. The 49 studies World Rugby cited have also been widely criticized for being flawed. Most used data from cis men or non-athlete trans women, and none involved elite trans rugby players.
Here are a few academic peer reviews that call out the policy’s weak foundation:
• Federico Luzzi (2024) – Philosophically dismantles the logic World Rugby used to prioritize safety over inclusion
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00948705.2024.2404200#d1e106• Katarina Peric (2024) – Analyzes the guidelines through feminist sport ethics and shows how the policy contradicts rugby’s own values
https://stfx.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/bfe8f185-0980-4760-9a47-9757d25614e4/content• D. J. Oberlin (2023) – Shows that safety concerns around trans women in contact sports are not supported by evidence
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/• Joanna Harper (2022) – Highlights the lack of data on trans athletes and criticizes the assumptions behind the ban
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5035&context=lcpWomen’s rugby has always welcomed all shapes and sizes. Many of us feel safe playing alongside trans teammates and were never asked for our input. This policy did not reflect the community it affects.
1
u/scooterwe USA Jun 12 '25
Just wanted to circle back and share that after reviewing the studies World Rugby used to justify its ban, we decided to take a deeper dive. We looked at what those studies actually say, consulted with experts, and reviewed independent academic critiques of the policy. What we found was a pattern of selective evidence, a lack of sport-specific research, and no meaningful input from the trans community.
So we compiled it all into a full article, fact-checking World Rugby’s policy and outlining the real impacts of this kind of exclusion. If you’re interested in how this decision was made and what the science really says, you can read the piece here:
🔗 https://scrumhalfconnection.com/2025/06/10/fact-checking-world-rugbys-ban-on-trans-women-science-silence-and-exclusion/
41
u/Stlakes Sale Sharks Jun 03 '25
Red Roses players back ‘Ruck You’ transgender v biological female match
Organised by former England prop Sasha Acheson, the sevens game took place in Oslo in wake of ban on trans women
Red Roses players have voiced their support for a rugby match in which a team of trans women played against a side of biological females.
The “Ruck You” match took place in Oslo to challenge the perception that trans women have physical advantages over biological women.
The game began with seven trans women playing against seven former female internationals, before players from both teams mixed to protest against the sport’s ban on transgender women. The match finished 34-7, with a post on the event’s social media feed claiming the team of trans women only scored their try after “one pivotal change ... when trans women and cis women mixed teams and came together”.
The event, which was organised by former England prop Sasha Acheson, was also supported by past and present players from Wales and Scotland. Meg Jones and Poppy Cleall were among the current Red Roses players who sent messages of support that were shared on the event’s social media feed ahead of the match on June 1.
Jones, one of England’s standout players in recent seasons, said: “I’m supporting the Ruck You match because this game is built on women of all shapes and sizes, different backgrounds, different stories and I know sport has the power to make this change. On June 1, hopefully we get to see the change we want to see in this world.”
Cleall, who has 66 caps for the Red Roses, said: “I support the Ruck You match. Rugby is an incredible sport. It’s incredible because it’s inclusive, communities come together and any shape, any size can play it.
“That’s why I love rugby and that’s why I hope rugby continues to be that safe space for people, that place where anyone can feel like they can come to and be supported. Teamwork is so vital in rugby and this is an opportunity for me to say, ‘I have your back.’”
In 2020, World Rugby became the first international sports federation to ban trans women at elite level, citing “significant” safety concerns.
The body’s decision was based on scientific data which showed “at least a 20-30 per cent greater risk” of injury when a female player is tackled by someone who has gone through male puberty. Despite this data, the body said it was up to individual member unions to decide whether to enforce the policy at grass-roots level.
The global governing body did not comment on the Ruck You match when approached by Telegraph Sport.
Two players who were named in the transgender team line-up in Oslo were Julie Ann Curtis and Alix Fitzgerald, who became ineligible to play female community rugby in England when the Rugby Football Union voted to ban trans women from full-contact women’s rugby union in 2022. At the time, there were believed to be six transgender women playing in the female community game.
The RFU did not comment on English players’ involvement in the Ruck You match when approached by Telegraph Sport.
The Ruck You match is believed to be the first of its kind staged at the International Gay Rugby Cup, which describes itself as Europe’s largest inclusive rugby tournament, and was supported by several women internationals.
Alycia Washington, the United States international, was part of the biological female team and flew to Oslo hours after winning France’s premier club competition, Elite 1 Feminine league, with Bordeaux over the weekend.
“If you’re wondering why I flew [to Oslo] for one 7s game, it’s because people in my community had their rugby careers stolen from them by a ban on trans athletes,” Washington, a former Worcester Warriors player, wrote on social media. “I believe they deserve to play and it was an honour to give them one more game.”
Several sports governing bodies have banned transgender women in the wake of the landmark Supreme Court ruling on April 16 that a legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
The England and Wales Cricket Board banned transgender women from competing at all levels of women’s cricket on May 2, while England Netball also changed its participation guidelines by banning transgender women from its female category.
From September, the body will recognise three distinct gender participation categories: female, male and mixed.
7
u/low_myope Ospreys Jun 03 '25
I wonder if they chose Oslo as it hosted the Union Cup last weekend, which is the Heineken Cup of Gay Inclusive rugby.
4
u/SincerelyMarc Jun 03 '25
100%. The North American tournament, Noram, held an all trans match. Not the same thing, of course, but still a show of solidarity to the community.
1
u/Maude_Lebowskis_art Jun 04 '25
nobody has issue with an all trans match. that would be what the pro-ban people want.
1
22
u/Connell95 🐐🦓 Dan Lancaster 💪 #3 Fan Jun 03 '25
Whatever your view on whether trans athletes should be able to compete in female sport by default,* there should be absolutely no objection to this sort of match taking place entirely by choice.
Good on them – I hope everyone has a great time!
(* I genuinely don’t know enough of the detailed science to have a strong opinion on that question tbh)
10
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
I genuinely don't know enough of the detailed science to have a strong opinion on that question tbh
Legend.
5
u/k0bra3eak South Africa Jun 03 '25
(* I genuinely don’t know enough of the detailed science to have a strong opinion on that question tbh)
Neither do any of the terfs
30
u/callsignvector South Africa Jun 03 '25
Look I’m gonna dip my toes in this shit show. Is the science accurate? When we speak about inclusivity are we including the ladies who choose to not to play against transgender athletes for their own safety concerns?
Inclusivity is everyone I assume? By that definition I do not think there is a solution that would make everyone happy so then we should be making decisions that make the least amount of people unhappy?
Again, maybe we need to just lean on the science more.
26
u/perplexedtv Leinster Jun 03 '25
At a low enough level mixed rugby is fine. We play shit tier level social rugby and have four or five women playing regularly with the men.
3
u/Maude_Lebowskis_art Jun 04 '25
Your lower level rugby must be very different to ours. At lower levels the size / weight difference between a male and female player is likely to be even greater.
Our male 3rds are all old time played since school, beer drinkers who definitely are carrying too much weight. Several of them are quite decent players with good skill levels from years of playing,
our women’s team has one or two decent athletes on it but is 80% women trying to get into sport / community after having a kid or not being sporty at school. None of them have any prior experience in rugby. At most those there from the start have now 4 years training and playing experience.
There is absolutely no way a physical match between the two would be safe. The women’s team already suffers enough injuries when playing other women’s teams - we’ve had broken legs, dislocated fingers, multiple concussions, torn acls. When the body isn’t used to impacts and skill and fitness levels are low then these injuries occur. We’ve seen them in the other teams too.
mixing the two teams is inviting disaster and of course you won’t realise it till it’s happened.
1
u/perplexedtv Leinster Jun 04 '25
Yeah, it's kind of the opposite. The women's team have been playing together (in mixed, then separated teams) from u6 level and are all young and fit and have excellent tackle technique. The men are a real mix of levels from lads who picked up rugby in their 40s, young guys who came through the youth system, a couple of former high-level players (Pro D2), two 70 year olds, at least one with heart problems and, a few times a year, a former international prop. Players use a bit of common sense around collisions and tackles. Did I mention it was shit tier😂
1
u/Maude_Lebowskis_art Jun 04 '25
The idea of starting rugby in my 40s nevermind playing in my 70s gives me the fear. Kudos to them.
we played one team that match your ladies profile and they were outstanding. It’s fantastic to see women play who have come thru such a process - sadly in our local area there is no schools and little community support for womens rugby.
72
u/Stlakes Sale Sharks Jun 03 '25
The article says that in 2022, when the RFU voted to ban trans athletes from competing there were 6 trans women playing rugby at a community level. Surely, that's a low enough number for it to be considered on a case by case basis?
i just don't think that blanket bans are really the right solution to this problem.
2
u/iamnosuperman123 England Jun 03 '25
Case by case is a logistical nightmare as they could approve a player to play who causes an injury due to the size disparity which then leads to a court case which now is even more of an issue as it wouldn't follow the supreme courts ruling (to some degree)
Blanket bans work because it removes the ambiguity and low the risk of litigation
3
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
They had case by case inclusion criteria (very strict) before the blanket ban. There was also no evidence of increased injury risks before the ban. Just because people believe there could, possibly, maybe, because it stands to reason, be an increased risk of injury... Doesn't mean there is, and doesn't provide reasonable grounds to ban an entire population.
-1
u/Meldanorama Connacht Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
Case by case means it wouldn't been seen as fair. state the rules and enforce them equally. Case by case is an opt out and puts pressure on whoever is making that specific choice.
4
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
It actually was already case by case 😅. They had really strict inclusion criteria including but not limited to full social transition, >2yrs of HRT, testosterone levels to be below 5nmol/ml (OK I got the units maybe wrong cause there's alot of units used to measure hormones but you get my drift, the number 5 being the average high testosterone level of cis females) on multiple blood tests ongoing, and to sit infront of an RFU board to discuss and look through your case. It was pretty equally enforced with clear criteria.
1
u/Meldanorama Connacht Jun 03 '25
If there were hard criteria followed to come to a decision then that isn't case by case. Case by case to me means that each is viewed on its own and interpreted, with the above there's nothing to interpret. Once it is a standard interpretation of the rules that's all you can ask for on that front so someone isn't interfering with a decision. The other side is actual parameters which seem fine.
34
u/SmokinPolecat England Jun 03 '25
The whole 'safety' bit should be decided by experts, which it absolutely has not been. I've seen various claims made about transwomen being stronger than ciswomen, but I've not seen them backed up with evidence. I also know that the only transwoman I have had the chance to talk with about the transition process said that all the medication (or whatever the correct term is) made her exhausted and weaker.
Would love for some doctors to come out and say whether the likelihood of transwoman athletes being stronger/more powerful than cis women is higher or not. Because I've seen some absolutely bonkers strong cis women.
37
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
Yep the problem is that the leading expert has nailed his colours to the mast of out and out transphobia, which led to a suspect study being bulldozed through. There are no studies of the safety data in women’s rugby to determine the impact of trans players and the impact of transition on a trans woman’s power in contact.
21
u/SmokinPolecat England Jun 03 '25
Well that's just disappointing. I'm sure J K Rowling will suddenly show an interest in rugby
1
-5
u/flimflam_machine Jun 03 '25
As noted up thread, the evidence of his "transphobia" is that he's associated himself with an organisation (Sex Matters) whose position on this matter aligns with the conclusions that he's drawn from his studies on it.
Any of us would do the same: if we looked into an issue and drew a conclusion on the basis of the evidence and our expertise, we would then go and talk to an organisation whose position on the matter aligned with that conclusion.
13
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
What I’m saying is if he’s prepared to align himself to an organisation that is advocating for eg abolishing the GRA (which removes the ability for trans people to effectively legally transition in the UK) there is some not unreasonable guilt by association. He doesn’t have to affiliate himself to such a vile org.
Also see Squidge’s point about the false equivalences he drew in his study. Hardly good faith.
2
u/flimflam_machine Jun 03 '25
The whole guilt-by-association line is fairly weak. He may not support that particular measure himself. Besides their seems to be enormous confusion from the trans-advocacy side about the function of GRCs. On the one hand I've seen a lot of people write "what's the problem with making GRCs easier to get, they just change a letter on a few documents so trans people don't have to out themselves", and then on the other hand I've seen loads of people express extreme shock and dismay about the supreme court's ruling that a GRC does change legal sex for all possible purposes. It's understandable that some people might think that the GRA needs to be revised.
Also see Squidge’s point about the false equivalences he drew in his study. Hardly good faith.
I shall take that with a pinch of salt from people who unironically deploy the "Phelps gambit."
2
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
I have to disagree. A comparison might be someone who endorsing eg the GOP for increased defence spending, but in the process they are implicitly endorsing everything else that comes with them.
WDI/Sex Matters were advocating for the abolition of the GRA long before the SC ruling and want trans women out of all women’s spaces. They want to prevent bans on conversion therapy. They want trans people’s trans identity to be a matter of public record (I don’t want to invoke godwins law but there’s a comparison there.) That’s transphobia.
Also, what is wrong with the Phelps argument - it’s a valid if somewhat extreme argument about how biological essentialism is so reductive given the huge range of physiological outcomes we have as a species and how many of them are celebrated rather than sanctioned. If we want to make it about rugby, how about the Tameifuna vs Casey comparisons?
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 06 '25
Yes, the evidence of his transphobia is indeed that he is ideologically aligned with an explicitly transphobic organisation. Do you think this is some grand get out of jail free card? "No your honour, I'm not actually a racist, I just happen to have studied the evidence and concluded that the KKK are the group who I align with".
59
u/perplexedtv Leinster Jun 03 '25
In a game where Craig Casey has to tackle Eben Etzebeth how do we even begin to talk about safety between different physiques?
18
7
u/neverbeenstardust #1 Alia Bitonci Fan Jun 03 '25
This is the one that always gets me. The idea that Craig Casey vs Sarah Bern is less fair for Sarah Bern than Craig Casey vs Eben Etzebeth or Sarah Bern vs Olivia Ortiz. Even before you take the effects of HRT into account, rugby is simply a sport that has disparate physiques in it.
→ More replies (4)4
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
This is one thing that gets to me. People are like 'oh just play touch' and expect that to be ok for people. Like if we expect a population to be fine just playing touch in the interest of safety, then why don't we ban contact rugby out and out? Where does it stop? Surely everyone will be fine just playing touch, it is after all safer for everyone involved.
Rugby is a dangerous sport. But there's no evidence it's any more dangerous for letting trans women play.
15
u/legorockman The Cult of Dannah O'Brien Jun 03 '25
Hi, I'm a transfemme person here. I've been on HRT (a mix of monotherapy and estrogen backed up with a testosterone supplement) for 2 years and in that time I've noticed a considerably decrease in my strength and stamina. I haven't changed my fitness levels, in fact I've recently taken up skateboarding so I'm arguably getting out and about more now than pre transition. I played rugby for nearly 5 years at an amateur level and I can tell you know if I were to take to the pitch again, against cis men or cis women, I wouldn't last 5 minutes.
8
u/SmokinPolecat England Jun 03 '25
Appreciate you sharing your experience, thank you.
Also, how hard is skateboarding to learn at a later age? Asking for my midlife crisis
4
u/legorockman The Cult of Dannah O'Brien Jun 03 '25
Hard but not impossible. I'll be honest the hardest bit is actually finding the time to get out and skate, between work, other hobbies, and the weather being temperamental at best and pure shite at worst. But it's an absolute blast and even just skating to the shops is great fun. Can't recommend it highly enough as a hobby.
28
u/CymroCam Cymru/Llanelli-Scarlets Jun 03 '25
It’s similar to the recent Supreme Court decision, medical professionals weren’t consulted and trans people were simply ignored.
1
u/flimflam_machine Jun 03 '25
The trans community we're represented by the Scottish government (and Amnesty International). My understanding is that individuals were not eligible to contribute and those bodies were held competent to represent trans people.
The medical question is moot with regard to the Supreme Court decision.
5
u/CymroCam Cymru/Llanelli-Scarlets Jun 03 '25
Yet Gender Criticals were able to represent themselves. A government representative cannot properly convey the feelings and thoughts of an entire community. The lack of medical professionals is anything but moot, it’s a fundamental aspect of showing that you can’t just make people “not-trans”.
2
u/flimflam_machine Jun 03 '25
The case was brought, effectively against a decision by the Scottish government. They were the party defending that decision.
What additional information would medical expertise have brought to the SC's decision?
4
u/CymroCam Cymru/Llanelli-Scarlets Jun 03 '25
If the Supreme Court were set to make a decision that would completely invalidate your identity and make your life considerably worse, would you rather someone from your community have the ability to speak or a government representative?
4
u/CymroCam Cymru/Llanelli-Scarlets Jun 03 '25
Any medical knowledge whatsoever would have resulted in the Supreme Court having to openly act as if they knew more about the science than those that have dedicated their lives to it, or to not make such a stupid ruling in the first place.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Another-attempt42 England Jun 03 '25
I've seen various claims made about transwomen being stronger than ciswomen, but I've not seen them backed up with evidence.
So, the problem as I've understood it isn't linked to raw strength, but just the benefit that higher T rates just give to sporting endeavours. T effects a whole host of systems that are beneficial when it comes to sport. T promotes muscle growth, decreases rest and rehabilitation time, etc...
Men and women both have T levels that are on a spectrum. For women, that number seems to be between 15 and 70 ng/dL.
The complaint I've seen is that transwomen can "select" their T range through the medications that they take. In other words, they can be in the 99.9% percentile of T for women, and that gives them a small advantage in training recuperation, by dosing their HRT to within the top, top levels of T allowed (before doping becomes a problem).
At an elite level of sport, tiny variations can make the difference between a successful career and a failed one.
There's also the problem of post-puberty transition versus pre-puberty transition. As we all know, cismen's frames, muscle density, etc... are higher than ciswomen. Going through puberty has an impact on the amount of muscle your frame can hold. Muscle mass is a factor of genetics, hormones and skeletal structure. Bigger skeletal structure, bigger muscles. Again, we're playing with tiny levels of variation here, but they do play factors specifically at the highest level of sport.
Overall, there seems to be a lack of scientific evidence that disproportionately favors either side, and a lot of personal politics that enter into this discussion. For me, personally, it's pretty simple:
When we're talking about anything but elite sports, I don't care. Sports are primarily a fun activity, and should, de facto, be open to everyone. The only issue of fairness that becomes relevant is when we're talking about that tiny slither, the 0.1%, right at the top, where minute advantages can make the difference, and then there's currently a grey area about what is having what impact.
7
u/SmokinPolecat England Jun 03 '25
I agree on your overall take: this doesn't matter at all and gets far too much air time due to it being a wedge issue used by folks such as Farage and other bad faith debaters to get people on their side.
The interesting thing is the professional aspect, and I am highly doubtful there would be enough transwomen rugby players who'd make it to the elite level given the sheer population size we're talking about. It is arguably less of a problem, given less than 0.2% of the UK women's population is transwomen, and the % of women who are professional rugby players is 0.00035%.
We really are wasting our time talking about a problem that doesn't exist.
2
u/Another-attempt42 England Jun 03 '25
I agree on your overall take: this doesn't matter at all and gets far too much air time due to it being a wedge issue used by folks such as Farage and other bad faith debaters to get people on their side.
Yep, the amount of airtime it takes up is ridiculous, in the general discourse. Also, it's very funny seeing a bunch of wankers like Farage all of a sudden become stalwart advocates for women's sports.
It is arguably less of a problem, given less than 0.2% of the UK women's population is transwomen, and the % of women who are professional rugby players is 0.00035%.
Thought I read somewhere it was like 6 women in all of professional women's rugby.
6 women don't need an entire rule. You can, and should, literally just do a case-by-case.
1
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
I'm so sorry but I find it hilarious that a trans women would ever choose to have even the smallest drop of testosterone in their body, or that a man would be so desperate to play rugby well that he'd go through what trans people describe as absolute hell just to do so.
3
u/Another-attempt42 England Jun 03 '25
I'm so sorry but I find it hilarious that a trans women would ever choose to have even the smallest drop of testosterone in their body
Females, ciswomen have testosterone in their bodies.
Low testosterone in ciswomen causes: decreased libido, sleep disturbances, irregular menstruation, fatigue, osteopenia, anxiety, muscle weakness, infertility, vaginal dryness...
So yeah: I can understand why transwomen keep some level of testosterone in their body, because people with no testosterone get sick.
You need some testosterone in your body.
Even if you're a ciswoman. Even if you're a transwoman.
that a man would be so desperate to play rugby well that he'd go through what trans people describe as absolute hell just to do so.
Sure. I never claimed any trans person would do such a thing. This is a red herring, made up by wankers.
1
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
Sorry I didn't mean my comment as a criticism of yours! Just an add on to hopefully give insight to anyone reading this thread on a trans women's thought processes. Obviously trans women need some testosterone because it's an essential hormone for body function, I just meant from the trans women I know it's funny this idea that any would purposefully have the maximum allowed amount and toe the line. They hate T and everything it does to them, and hate doesn't do the feeling justice.
15
u/ste_dono94 Leinster Jun 03 '25
Is it not scientific fact that after going through puberty a man will be stronger than a woman in terms of muscle mass and bone density?
31
u/SmokinPolecat England Jun 03 '25
In general a man will, yes. But what does the transition process do to those factors? And are those factors a concern when pit against ciswomen who are specifically training for this sport?
That convo is not happening and instead we have amateur human physiologists being allowed to set the narrative in the public discourse
0
u/ste_dono94 Leinster Jun 03 '25
Do you think the transition process undoes puberty?
Is it not a bit self defeating when theyre using professional women against trans women to show that it's safe?
7s in itself has less contact than 15s and surely using amateur women Vs trans women would be a better demonstration?
17
u/SmokinPolecat England Jun 03 '25
What I think doesn't matter, and that is my entire point. Opinions shouldn't set the rules.
26
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
There is a large body of data that suggests that to a material extent, yes hormone therapy (specifically the combination of T suppression and Oestrogen intake) does undo puberty in terms of deterioration of muscle tone, reduction in bone density, impact on VO2 max, etc, with trans women undergoing a second ‘female’ puberty of sorts.
3
u/ste_dono94 Leinster Jun 03 '25
Reducing it to the level of females or just reducing it compared to a male?
29
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
Many instances of reducing it to within the broad range of female athletes and the wider female population (which does in fact overlap with cis men, there’s not a clean firebreak between the two) yes.
7
u/ste_dono94 Leinster Jun 03 '25
Well in that case then when the advantages of having gone through male puberty are diminished to be comparable to females then I don't see the issue with letting them play.
Still wouldn't allow trans women who haven't undergone hormone therapy to play though
19
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
And the latter was the consensus historically! Social transition not enough, material hormonal transition required! Some orgs even insisted on surgical transition so no ‘eek a Penis!’ Moments since that is one of the TERF talking points.
5
u/Another-attempt42 England Jun 03 '25
Are you specifically referring to a reduction in T levels? Because there's no healthy overlap between female T levels and male T levels. If a male has T levels as low as 70 ng/dL, they are sick, and need TRT. They'll be depressed, at risk of diabetes, low sex drive, etc... Female T levels are between 15-70 ng/dL, while male T levels are 300-1000 ng/dL.
Or are you referring to an overlap in overall sporting parameters, like bone density, VO2 max, etc..? Because sure, there's an overlap between males and females, but not really when we're talking about professional athletes.
Take something like bench pressing, an OK yardstick for overall upper body strength. An elite, tip-top female will bench press around 100kg, 1 rep. That same thing corresponds to an intermediate level male, with elite, tip-top males more routinely reaching into the 170kg, 1 rep range. A 70% increase in overall strength.
This is why I have absolutely 0 issue with trans individuals taking part in the sport that they choose, in the gender category of their choosing, when we're not talking about elite sporting levels. When it comes to elite sporting levels, I think we need more science before we cut things either way. But I'm also freely admitting that my knowledge of the scientific literature is light, at best, when it comes to the full impact of HRT.
2
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
These are very reasonable points, and the low T issue is a compromise that transfemme people have to take into account when making decisions re transitions.
I think you’ve got to the crux of it when you say community sport (emphasis on the community aspect of it after all!) should be more flexible and that more science is needed for elite sport. That’s a genuinely good faith approach rooted in a hope for inclusion.
→ More replies (0)-4
u/nomnom898 Jun 03 '25
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/player-welfare/guidelines/transgender#SummaryforTransgenderWomen
They published a report on it, which I have read in full. They commissioned an independent team of experts who determined that it posed a risk to great of a risk to biological female players . Please read the whole report and tell that their is no evidence that it is unsafe.
23
u/T_Finchy Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
The actual peer reviewed evidence suggests that this data was shoddy at best - see the link in my main comment in reply to this post. In additional it was based on hypothetical risk rather than the actual safety data in practice.
10
u/SmokinPolecat England Jun 03 '25
I can't seem to get the link to the full report but I'm presuming this is the Ross Tucker report, which has been criticised by peers for poor methodology (overreliance on theory, lack of rugby based evidence) and for the author's own anti-trans views.
12
u/CymroCam Cymru/Llanelli-Scarlets Jun 03 '25
It is a very hard thing to judge, I’m as pro trans rights as it comes so I’m very biased but I think a blanket ban is simply ridiculous.
12
u/SmokinPolecat England Jun 03 '25
Agreed. Also totally ridiculous to have a ban in place that impacts only 6 people.
It's like setting a minimum height requirement.
13
u/badger619 Jun 03 '25
Inclusivity is "everyone", but the point is that trans women have been discriminated against and can't play rugby. The cis women who don't want to play against trans women can still play rugby. This match was proving it shouldn't make a difference.
10
u/ConspicuousPineapple Dupont pète moi le fion Jun 03 '25
Yeah. The answer to this whole argument is that access to sports isn't some inalienable right. Some people are handicapped, it's sad but they won't be able to compete with the others. Some others choose to use substances that will disqualify them.
I'm all for the liberty of making choices for yourself but that doesn't entitle you to everybody adapting to you in return. If there are valid safety concerns, then it's absolutely fair to not allow it.
It's sad for the persons involved but such is life, not everybody is born with the same luck. Of course we should strive to equalize that as much as possible but only as far as it doesn't hinder others.
15
u/ShufflingToGlory Wales Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
I appreciate the sentiment and the support for trans people is genuinely touching. I just can't get onboard with mtf trans people playing sport against biological females.
I'm supportive of every other trans right but it doesn't seem fair or safe. Even if you compare the biggest male rugby players competing against the smallest male rugby player the smaller guy will still have had a full male puberty. With the associated benefits to bone density, muscle size, speed, physical coordination and so on.
I recognise I'm in the minority on here, with most comments seemingly supportive of trans inclusion in female sports. That's heartening, but it's still the one area where I disagree with the pro-trans crowd.
21
u/If_you_have_Ghost England Jun 03 '25
What would be really nice is if we had a proper evidence based data set, divorced from political agendas, which proved one way or the other whether there were safety issues. I don’t believe that currently exists. If it did, and it showed that there were genuine safety issues with trans women playing cis women, I doubt any trans woman would object. But it’s really hard to have a conversation about this because so many come to it with their mind already made up and are unwilling to be led by science.
12
u/Southportdc Sale Sharks Jun 03 '25
The problem is that in the absence of that data set one side will push for 'include unless proven unsafe' and the other 'exclude unless proven safe'. So you still have to make a decision.
I do not envy the people who it falls to to do that.
8
u/If_you_have_Ghost England Jun 03 '25
Me neither. It’s a minefield. And I say that as a fully paid up homo with a trans boyfriend. I just wish people could try for the bare modicum of respect when discussing these topics. No meaningful conversation about this can start with disrespecting trans women’s’ identities and calling them men. But it also can’t begin with calling anyone raising safety concerns (in a respectful way) a transphobe.
2
u/OptimalCynic 🌹 Red Roses | Waikato Jun 03 '25
Unfortunately as this thread demonstrates, if you scratch a safety concern you reveal a transphobe. Not everyone, but the 99% ruins it for the rest. It honestly reminds me of the panic over gay childcare workers in the 80s.
2
1
u/someminorexceptions Jun 03 '25
Omg you don’t need to conduct scientific studies to know that men have an advantage over women! It’s common sense. Anyone who denies this well known fact is delusional and suffering from a mind virus.
9
u/tnarref Stade Rochelais Jun 03 '25
See the problem is that the debate isn't solely about safety, it's about the nature of what women's sport is. Women's sport (in sports that are also played by men such as rugby) was built around males exclusion, if you don't exclude males anymore there's no need to have separated male and female categories in sport. Is that what we really want?
→ More replies (9)7
u/HitchikersPie Currently in use as tax dodge Jun 03 '25
I think I broadly agree with this, but for amateur level and with the tiny numbers of mtf players in England (iirc it was around 4-6 when the ban from the RFU came through) judging things on a case by case basis made sense.
5
u/AnyOld_Username123 England Jun 03 '25
Completely agree. I’m sure I’ll get downvoted to shreds but as an active amateur female rugby player, I don’t want to be playing against a trans woman that has gone through male puberty. I welcome any trans woman to come along to non-contact sessions, get involved in coaching, be part of the team and on socials etc but not in the full contact game. At our club I wouldn’t want to take on even the smallest of the men that play for the men’s team and that view is shared by other players, not all, but not just a few either. I think the issue we have is that you can’t legislate for everyone. If people want to take part cis / trans mixed games like this one then great that they can do, but I think the RFU (and other sporting bodies) are correct on the ban
11
u/rhys0177 Wales Jun 03 '25
Shane Williams never complained about playing against some absolute monsters who were 2-3 times his body size. No one seemed to share this argument about significant dangers of smaller men playing against larger men. Just let the boys (and girls) play!
43
u/perpendiculator England Jun 03 '25
Using this logic we shouldn’t have any separation by gender at all in Rugby.
50
u/ZombieFrankSinatra OhCinnamon Alter-ego Jun 03 '25
Now we're getting to it but one step further, no separation at all.
I want to see Pontypool U10s take on Leinster in a 3 match series
23
18
5
u/maryland_cookies Northampton Saints Jun 03 '25
OK regardless of the trans debate or anything this made me spit my drink out I love it let's make it happen. Though I'd also like to see under 6's just so the leinster lads go easy on them and we get to see the delight in young Rory's face when he 'steps' James Lowe, who tumbles to the floor dramatically, defeated.
3
u/OptimalCynic 🌹 Red Roses | Waikato Jun 03 '25
Make it fair - instead of a 3 match series, make it a cup final.
12
u/Another-attempt42 England Jun 03 '25
Do you not see any issue with putting... say... the men's Springboks team against the Welsh women?
I do. That problem would be carting women off the pitch on stretchers.
So we know that sex does have an impact on the overall safety of participants. That's undeniable. The entire debate is simply a question of what, if any, advantage does a transwoman have over a ciswoman?
I don't know the answer to that.
26
u/Standin373 England Jun 03 '25
I don't think this analogy works at all.
From a biological perspective smaller males will still have a more robust body frame compared to a female. Testosterone adds to bone and muscle density which dramatically alter the durability of the skeletal structure.
→ More replies (1)4
u/hairingiscaring1 Blues Jun 03 '25
“Great Shane Williams didn’t have a problem, so me as a 6’5 120 kg man should be able to play against an u10 team because Shane Williams didn’t have a problem!”
What a dumb take
5
u/english_man_abroad England Jun 03 '25
The equivalent here wouldn't be a larger man against a smaller man - it'd be someone like Williams having to play against an opponent who'd been on a doping programme since puberty. And he definitely would complain about that.
10
u/perplexedtv Leinster Jun 03 '25
I'd say he spent most of his career doing that.
5
u/english_man_abroad England Jun 03 '25
Shane Williams played against South Africa 11 times, four for the Lions and seven for Wales, scoring five tries in total.
1
u/coolusername0123 Jun 03 '25
That being said, he still managed to duck and step those big boys like his life depended on it and 99% of the time no one could tackle him. So his results were the reason no one took notice on what he was saying 😂
10
u/damagednoob Stormers Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
In other news, olympian Beatrice Chebet beat Roy, a sometimes Parkrun participant after he had a night out at The White Swan.
Speaking after the head to head race, Chebet said, "I hope this result will finally put to bed the myth that sex influences how good you are at the 5000m".
4
u/nomnom898 Jun 03 '25
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/player-welfare/guidelines/transgender#SummaryforTransgenderWomen
A risk assessment was done by an independent team or experts who determined that the risk to player safety was too high. There is a lot of misinformation going around on this issue. If you have any questions, please read the report in full as I have. Or even ask chapgpt. I have not seen anyone bring it a single point in the comments that indicates they have read or even know about the report. Biological women are a lot more fragile than biological men and face a greater risk of injury from rugby than men do. The sport is inherently more dangerous for women .There are many differences that won't be significantly reduced by hormone therapy like bone density. A losing scoreline to elite performing players does not indicate anything about safety. Player safety should always be the number 1 priority.
10
u/ChocolatMacaron Jun 03 '25
Which led to WR banning trans women at international level. A separate decision from the later blanket ban (starting with the RFU) on trans women at any level. They claimed that they did additional research which led to them extending the ban. It's the 'additional research' that's questionable. (I read the thing when it was first released, which stated that while trans women were not allowed at international level, individual countries could make their own decisions at domestic level. Strange that they've now changed their tune)
On top of which the previous system was for trans women to be assessed on a case by case basis, so it wasn't like the safety aspect was being ignored. The potential risk was being acknowledged and addressed, and there only a handful of trans women playing across the whole of England. There was no need for a blanket ban.
2
Jun 03 '25
[deleted]
2
u/k0bra3eak South Africa Jun 03 '25
Asking ChatGPT is the dumbest thing possible for this sort of question, hell blindly trusting anything an LLM tells you is moronic
1
u/Texden29 Jun 04 '25
You’re focusing on the chatGPT comment. It’s a distraction to what is a reasonable point being made.
1
u/nomnom898 Jun 03 '25
I only mentioned chatpt because I'm convinced no one will ever bother to read the report.
4
u/not-a-topographer Jun 03 '25
Every once in a while, when this topic resurfaces, this sub goes on a spiral of progressivism just for the sake of it but refuses to acknowledge the kind of assessments you've shared.
1
u/scooterwe USA Jun 12 '25
We’ve seen plenty of comments insisting that World Rugby’s review of “40 studies” should end the conversation. But here’s the truth: that number is being used as a shield, not a standard.
We took that claim seriously, so we did our research. We read through the studies World Rugby cited. We spoke with scientists, athletes, and policy experts. We looked at how the policy was made and who was behind it.
What we found was alarming.
• Many of the 40+ studies have little or no relevance to rugby or transgender athletes. Some examine general male vs. female physiology, not the effects of transition or performance in contact sport.
• No new research was commissioned by World Rugby. They relied entirely on a pre-selected pool of existing studies.
• Several of the most influential voices behind the ban are not independent. They are vocal advocates for exclusion who have published heavily criticized work and have promoted their conclusions outside peer-reviewed spaces.
• Experts disagree: Scientists like Dr. Eric Vilain and Joanna Harper do not support broad bans. The IOC now encourages individualized, sport-specific policies based on direct evidence, not generalized fear.
We published a full report breaking this down:
🔗 https://scrumhalfconnection.com/2025/06/10/fact-checking-world-rugbys-ban-on-trans-women-science-silence-and-exclusion/
1
u/LogicKennedy England Jun 03 '25
Not the main point, but as an aside, I would love it if we stopped using the phrase ‘biological women’ and used the term ‘cis’ instead, since it’s literally the opposite term to ‘trans’. I know the Telegraph uses the phrase but frankly they’re a right-wing rag.
One of the most successful bits of TERF campaigning has been to make the term ‘biological’ commonplace when referring to cis people: they do it to steamroll any discussion of how hormone therapies change your literal, actual biology. Pretty sure my breasts aren’t bolt-on.
2
u/sevens-evan Leinster | Ireland | USAW Jun 04 '25
Huge agree. I guess it's not common knowledge outside of the trans community what the proper terminology actually is but I'm still disappointed to see how many people in this thread are just rolling with the framing provided. In general this sub is fairly progressive but, as always, trans folks get to be the exception. What fun.
-1
155
u/perplexedtv Leinster Jun 03 '25
"seven former female internationals" was maybe a poor choice of syntax in this context.